the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

chownah wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
chownah wrote:Raising animals with the intent of assuring that they are humanely treated would not be wrong livelihood.
chownah
P.S. Can you find a Sutta reference that says that raising animals is wrong livelihood?
chownah
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There are farmers who do treat their animals very humanly. They live out quite nice lives and then sent to slaughter. And they sell "humane meat" as it's sometimes called in the marketplace. These farmers, even though they are very nice to the animals, are still engaged in wrong livelihood because the animals are raised for the purpose of providing meat. By the very definition of that activity, it intrinsically includes the intent to kill them or have them killed, because obviously you can't get meat without the animal being killed.

Raising animals itself is not wrong livelihood. Raising animals to provide meat is. I don't think anyone can afford to raise animals and just give the meat away for free, that would be extremely expensive! The meat would of course have to be sold just to be able to afford raising the animals. This is, by definition, "business in meat" mentioned above.

Another thread that touches on the topic where Bhikkhu Pesala gives a good explanation IMO. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

:anjali:
Having a business in meat is wrong livelihood. This does not show that raising animals is wrong livelihood. Raising animals does not have the intrinsic intention to kill them.....in fact it is possible to raise animals with the intention of providing them a humane existence.
I think we all agree that raising an animal will end in the animal's death. You seem to think that in raising an animal one is somehow automatically in some way responsible for their death.
chownah
P.S. Some farmers raise cows and sell cows....they never kill a cow and they never sell meat.
chownah
From the thread I linked. :anjali:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Maṃsavaṇijjāti sūkaramigādayo posetvā tesaṃ vikkayo.
Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.

In my opinion this would include any kind of living-being sold for its meat or hide, but not if sold for other purposes, e.g. oxen for pulling carts, horses for riding, or dogs for pets or work.
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Trading in flesh, according to the Commentary, means trading in animals for slaughter, whether one raises them oneself, or buys them from the farmer and sells them to the slaughter-house.
A farmer who raises animals to kill, kills them and sells the meat, is wrong livelihood. A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. It does not matter if you actually kill the animal and it doesn't matter if you sell actual meat as "business in meat" means selling the animals OR the meat after you have killed the animal. If one raises animals very humanly and then sells the animals to someone to kill, to make meat, this is wrong livelihood. If the purpose of raising the animal is to provide meat, it's wrong livelihood regardless of who actually does the killing, regardless of how the animals are treated and regardless of who sells slabs of meat itself. "Business in meat" includes the whole process of production from the beginning. Even if you were to just breed animals and immediately sell the babies to someone who will raise them for meat, this would still be wrong livelihood.

:anjali:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Seeker242 wrote: " A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. "

I think this is wrong. I think the Buddha never taught this. Is there a Sutta reference which says this? I believe that there is a Sutta where the Buddha distinguishes between "cow" and "meat" but I have not been able to find it. As I remember it did not have to do with right livelihood ....and as I remember the Buddha said something like after you cut up a cow you refer to it as meat and not as cow. I hope someone can find this since my present internet devise doesn't seem to have very good search abilities.
chownah
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa »

chownah wrote: I remember the Buddha said something like after you cut up a cow you refer to it as meat and not as cow.
This is from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, where the Buddha discusses observing elements of the body in the way that a cut-up cow is observed to be meat parts, and not whole cow. I think Buddhaghosa comments further in the Vsm.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

The correct term would be cow meat or meat of the cow.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa »

lyndon taylor wrote:The correct term would be cow meat or meat of the cow.
Not 'beef'? And anyway, I wonder what the Pali is; but the phrase seems to be something about 'cutting into pieces', however. Just as one observes this very body cut up into perception-pieces for that particular satipatthana.

In terms of this thread, it's notable that the Buddha used butchering processes as a simile, instead of as a moral soapbox...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

daverupa wrote:
chownah wrote: I remember the Buddha said something like after you cut up a cow you refer to it as meat and not as cow.
This is from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, where the Buddha discusses observing elements of the body in the way that a cut-up cow is observed to be meat parts, and not whole cow. I think Buddhaghosa comments further in the Vsm.
Thanks for that! It is the Buddhaghosa comment that I remembered but I didn't remember it as being commentarial. I don't take the commentaries too seriously so I won't be taking this as bolstering my bluster any longer but for those who like commentarial stuff this might give them another perspective.
Thanks again,
chownah
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

It seems what the buddha is saying is once you cut a cow up into pieces it becomes cow meat, and is no longer a whole cow, how this relates to the topic of vegetarianism, I am not sure.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

chownah wrote:Seeker242 wrote: " A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. "

I think this is wrong. I think the Buddha never taught this. Is there a Sutta reference which says this?
chownah
Yes, the sutta I posted before, and the other discussion where Bhikkhu Pesala translated the pali of the sutta and the sutta's commentary.

Maṃsavaṇijjāti sūkaramigādayo posetvā tesaṃ vikkayo.
Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.

There is no requirement mentioned that you need to kill the animal yourself in order for it to be a wrong livelihood. If you are looking for a sutta that mentions that this is not mentioned, such a thing does not exist. The commentary on the sutta indicates that this is most definitely wrong livelihood. Although, since only a bhikkhu has the authority to interpret such suttas, only a bhikkhu can say authoritatively say it is or isn't. I have never heard any bhikkhu say it isn't. Out of all the comments I have seen made about this by any bhikkhu, all I have seen them say is that it is. I assume they know what they are talking about. After all, it is the bhikkhu-sangha that has the sole authority in interpreting the suttas.

:anjali:
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

daverupa wrote:In terms of this thread, it's notable that the Buddha used butchering processes as a simile, instead of as a moral soapbox...
lyndon taylor wrote:It seems what the buddha is saying is once you cut a cow up into pieces it becomes cow meat, and is no longer a whole cow, how this relates to the topic of vegetarianism, I am not sure.
Exactly. The purpose of a simile is to illustrate a point with vivid language.

Drawing conclusions about the Buddha's views on the meat trade from a simile that happens to mention a slaughtered cow is ridiculous. If one took that route, one could make up all sorts of the "Buddha's conclusions" to suit one's opinions based on the plethora of similes in the Canon about lepers, saws, bath powder, turtles, arrows, charcoal pits, blind men, etc.

"Business in meat" is wrong livelihood. That's clear to me: anyone who makes an economic profit in relation to the meat trade is doing wrong livelihood. The closer one is to the actual act of killing, the worse the kamma. Note that this doesn't include the consumer because they aren't making money from it. But the consumer who willingly goes out and buys meat may have a mind of wrong intention as right intention includes "harmlessness".
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

seeker242 wrote:Although, since only a bhikkhu has the authority to interpret such suttas, only a bhikkhu can say authoritatively say it is or isn't. I have never heard any bhikkhu say it isn't.

After all, it is the bhikkhu-sangha that has the sole authority in interpreting the suttas.
Reference?

Several bhikkhus disagree over interpretation as much as, if not more so, than lay people. Several lay people have translated the Pali Canon. Several lay people taught the Dhamma during the time of the Buddha. Several lay people write Dhamma books in modern times and provide their interpretations. So I am curious as to this reference for only bhikkhus being allowed to interpret.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

David N. Snyder wrote:
seeker242 wrote:Although, since only a bhikkhu has the authority to interpret such suttas, only a bhikkhu can say authoritatively say it is or isn't. I have never heard any bhikkhu say it isn't.

After all, it is the bhikkhu-sangha that has the sole authority in interpreting the suttas.
Reference?

Several bhikkhus disagree over interpretation as much as, if not more so, than lay people. Several lay people have translated the Pali Canon. Several lay people taught the Dhamma during the time of the Buddha. Several lay people write Dhamma books in modern times and provide their interpretations. So I am curious as to this reference for only bhikkhus being allowed to interpret.
I doubt there's a reference in the Canon. But the history of Theravada Buddhism makes it clear that what we have today is an interpretation of the Buddha's words by the monastic order. The teachings were passed down orally for hundreds of years by the monastic Sangha before they were written down. They had to be modified in such a way that they could be easliy remembered which is the reason for all the repetition and stock phrases in the suttas. Ven. Bodhi often talks about this in his talks. There are also many suttas that scholars doubt the authenticity of. And I think many of us who read the Canon may find suttas that seem corrupted, embellished, or added on to. Finally, the Pali Canon is only one version of the Buddha's teachings and there are other versions in Sanskrit and Chinese that may be different. Therefore, I conclude that much of the Buddha's teachings in the Canon are an interpretation of the monastic Sangha.

I'm not agreeing with seeker242 because in the end each person has to come to their own conclusion of the Dhamma via practice. That's why a stock phrase of the stream-enterer is "one who has become independent of others" in his understanding of Dhamma.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by culaavuso »

Mkoll wrote:That's why a stock phrase of the stream-enterer is "one who has become independent of others" in his understanding of Dhamma.
This stock phrase seems to suggest that interpretations of the Dhamma by the Ariya Sangha are best to take as authoritative. Of course, this leaves the identification of Ariya Sangha as an exercise in discernment.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran »

Great care was taken during the time of the Buddha and right down to the present day to ensure the Teachings were accurately passed down and not altered or corrupted - by the chanting together of the Banakas:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 211#p10529

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

Yes of course the 500 arahants (all monastics) recited the five Nikayas and Vinaya at the First Council, but they are not here now. I am referring to modern times and how both monastic and lay interpret the Suttas.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

David N. Snyder wrote:Yes of course the 500 arahants (all monastics) recited the five Nikayas and Vinaya at the First Council, but they are not here now. I am referring to modern times and how both monastic and lay interpret the Suttas.
Right. And I agree that there are many contemporary and historical interpretations.
culaavuso wrote:
Mkoll wrote:That's why a stock phrase of the stream-enterer is "one who has become independent of others" in his understanding of Dhamma.
This stock phrase seems to suggest that interpretations of the Dhamma by the Ariya Sangha are best to take as authoritative. Of course, this leaves the identification of Ariya Sangha as an exercise in discernment.
Right. But the middleman is one's own interpretation of their words. And that middleman must always be there to learn. In the end, it's up to each individual's discernment as you said.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Post Reply